OK if we are back to talking everyone in one day, then you go 6:30 am pro women and men and women over 60. Women below 40 at 6:45 am, Women above 40 below 60 at 7 am, 8:00 am to 8:30 am, six waves of 800 people each, keep the midnight cut offs and keep the 5:30 pm bike cut off.
8 am start for men under 60 still means a 16 hrs cut off. You could even start them at 9am and have plenty of time.
I think the main issue is that if you start the P W 2nd behind the P M, you are then going to have P M affecting the front of the PW + fast AG athletes affecting by the end as well from behind. I would think if you truly want the “best” for the women, they have to start 1st with a sizeable start window. Again this is going to have to be a conversation piece because if you go back to “1 race” you essentially are punting on “equality” narrative, thus your going to want to likely improve the PW experience to get the least inteferred.
@devashish_paul I don’t think you need to change the cut off times, or they would go that route, even at a WC’s; there are still a bunch of “finishers” out there who want/need every sec of the clock.
Should they decide for the one day race, they can solve the waves with some quantitative based algorithms. These will never be perfect (and people will always complain), but it’ll be optimised as good as possible. It’s a secondary problem with a known solution.
The key is decision making, with necessary stakeholders management and business planning. Options are on the table, they have the data, they have our AG input, they have the Pro input, they have feedback from sponsors, they hopefully aligned with local governments etc. Now they need to model the scenarios based on future income and brand protection. Whatever gives the highest risk-weighted benefit will be decided.
I look forward to the announcement.
What they can’t solve is the argument that a 1 day race moves away from “equality”. They can basically mitigate it with all the data and start splits, but it’s still a step in the wrong direction for “equality”. Especially as they have already opened that door, I just think it’s going to be really hard to then just throw the PW back into the “same ole same ole” that they’ve always done.
I don’t like the current format that they are at different locations. I think the women would get even more exposure/prestigue if the entire sport was racing together at the same location over a short time frame. It seems that within Hawaii at best that is a week apart schedule. Obviously anything longer than that pretty much would eliminate the “overall” vibe of having the entire ecosystem basically all there at the same time.
“Equality” factor is part of the stakeholder management. One of many. In the end their job is to provide the best solution overall, not best equality solution.
Oh I agree, they just have to accept that if they do go to only a 1 day race, they lose the “equality” factor and have to take it basically take it on the chin for that sorta PR L. It may not matter overall, that is just an L within that factor. Currently they aren’t taking that L but they are “losing” money from having W only events that aren’t “selling out”. So is the “equality” movement and prestigue they get from the W only races worth the fact that they are likely “losing money” by providing that. I guess the ultimate catch 22.
You also have to add that “equality” is a very big social/world topic right now. So it’s also that you take an likely PR hit. That may not mean much, it may mean a lot, but it’s one of those hot topics that will certainly have people talking if it’s taken away.
In a weird way, this is one of the few race distances that it really makes no sense to have completely separate races simply because of how much it takes for a race of this distance to be put on. This isn’t the ITU where they shut down 4 hours of roads to have the top men and women racing over 2 different days. IM is an event that basically takes race officials an full 24 hours to simply run/manage it (they probaly get there at 2am to start setting up the venue and then obviously have to break it down after the race). It’s a ton to put on and make work. It’s really beyond anything else in the sport. Even the Thur-Sat format put a ton on the race staff, etc.
If you really wanted to spice up a one day race, you’d give the women the exact head start they need so that the men’s winner and the women’s winner finish at the same expected time.
The overall winner is then the first across the finish line.
“Can Kat Matthews hold on vs a charging Patrick Lange?”
(This isn’t really a serious suggestion)
When was it ever alive…Worst expos ever among the civilized triathlon world…
It certainly has been diminished as IM wants people buying in their merch tent. But the Expo at Kona was very busy all week. Zoot still sees value going to Kona, less so Nice, and I think other endemic sponsors are starting to team up expo space to make it more cost effective. If the races are two weeks apart, it’s a non-starter.
Why would Zoot see less value going to Nice? Still the same target market, still the same number of competitors etc? Travel costs should be better for Nice?
It was just too expensive to travel from SoCal and do both. Zoot Europe had a small presence there. There’s all the product, tents, and signs that need to be shipped as well. Not an indictment of the event, just can’t clear enough revenue to make it cost effective.
« Founded in Kona, Hawaii, the home of the Ironman Triathlon World Championships, Zoot Sports began making performance apparel … »
This is a copy-paste from Zoot website. No wonder Zoot prefers an expo in Hawaii rather than Nice, The Island is part of their history and marketing. Just like Bob Babbitt.
Which is pretty short sited and myopic. They may have an emotional attachment to Hawaii but the world is a big place and the market isn’t just Kona…
It’s not a question of vision, it’s a question of resources. This simply speaks to the challenge of two races in different locations for smaller companies.
Doesn’t escape from Alcatraz do a lottery ? Why can’t Ironman do the same ?
Maybe lottery isn’t the right word but a sign up fee.
Just do an image group race and change $5000 .
Maybe the way to do it is have premium races with Kona slots (they could be half or full). Let’s say the half race is normally $500, if you want to sign up in the premium group you pay something like $800 and then everyone who entered the premium tier gets some extra benefits (one being put in a draw for Kona slots), but you get things like shorter lineups, fancier backpack etc. My gut feel is many sign up via that path if the premium is low enough and if the number of slots awarded at an event is high enough (let’s say it is 50).
A big unresolved question, aside from finances and venues:
If the WC becomes easier to get into does that lessen the appeal in a way that hurts the brand and lowers participation at WC and/or qualifying races?
It’s easy to see a world where pay to play, extra slots, or lotteries wear away at the appeal of a WC labeled race. It’s also easy to see new people being excited about getting their first chance. Idk how this would affect things in the long run.
As long as you have to qualify and get a roll down slot in the 1-30 in most bigger age groups, no big deal about it being watered down.
IM has a lot of room to go there before it’s an issue.
IM have already stuffed up by providing so many female WC slots. I know more than one who passed up on taking a Kona slot because they were too embarrassed /felt they hadn’t earned it. The spots were available to anyone who wanted to go, nobody wants that.
Nobody wants to be in a club with no barrier to entry.
There’s what people say and what they do.
“I didn’t take my slot because it was too easily obtained.” could also be - ” money is tight this year, and don’t want to spend the new economy inflated prices for a slot this time around."
True, the ease of obtaining the slot may have some affect on this response but ask yourself this - If IM said, “you’ve got a slot, all expense paid, do you accept?” I don’t think they’d decline because it was too easily obtained.